ID: aiam4678

"Dear Mr. Andrlik: This responds to your letter asking about Federa regulations that would apply to the 'Milford Cargo Barrier' that Milford Industries, an Australian company, manufactures. Your enclosure indicates that the barrier is a type of wire screen that is generally anchored to the sides and floor of a vehicle directly behind the front seat(s). The barrier is intended to protect occupants in a crash from impact with objects carried in the rear of cars, trucks and vans. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you describe. Our standard for glazing materials (Standard No. 205) applies only to interior barriers or partitions that contain glazing, and not to wire screens. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of Milford's barriers. If the barrier were installed as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Installation of the barrier could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, installation of the barrier could affect compliance with Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, which sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat, to protect occupants in the rear seat who may be thrown forward in a crash. The barrier could also affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (safety belts and other restraint systems), and Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (driver field of view). Copies of each of these standards are enclosed. If the barrier were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle (e.g., a completed van) prior to the vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an 'alterer' under 49 CFR /567.7. This would occur if the installation of the barrier constituted something other than a 'readily attachable' component (such as tires or rim assemblies). To determine whether installation of the barrier involves a readily attachable component, the agency considers factors such as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise in installing the barrier. The advertising brochure you enclosed states: 'Expert installation available Australia wide.' It also indicates that the barriers are 'designed...to the individual dimensions' of the consumer's motor vehicle and are 'load rated' (which we understand to mean that the barrier and its attachment are capable of withstanding a rated load). These factors appear to indicate that a degree of special expertise and analysis are needed to install the barrier so that it will perform in the manner intended. In light of these considerations, the barrier appears to be something other than a readily attachable component under /567.7. (If Milford would like to send us information indicating otherwise, we would be happy to review it.) If the cargo barrier were installed in a new or used vehicle by a commercial business such as a motor vehicle dealer or repair shop, the installer would be subject to Safety Act considerations affecting the installation. Section l08(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....' Thus, the commercial installer would have to make sure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards (such as Standards 111, 201 and 208). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. In addition to the FMVSS considerations, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment should also be aware that they are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed a copy of our regulation for defect responsibility of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers (49 CFR Part 579) for your information. Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. In addition to the regulations described above, we also bring to your attention a procedural rule which applies to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. Subpart D of 49 CFR Part 55l, Procedural Rules, requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information: l. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made, 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer, 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name, 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer, 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation, and, 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: Tunick.2

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078




Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your October 18, 2004, letter in which you requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked whether our September 26, 2003, Federal Register notice (68 FR 55544) making correcting amendments to the standard would preclude the use of Item 4A glazing in the rear window of a convertible. The answer to your question is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of those standards is FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes (ANSI) Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26.1). Accordingly, a manufacturer must certify compliance of its product with the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, including those requirements incorporated from ANSI Z26.1.

As noted in your letter, NHTSA is in the process of modifying the regulatory requirements under FMVSS No. 205, by shifting from the currently referenced 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 (supplemented by Z26.1a-1980) to the 1996 version of that ANSI standard. A final rule to effect this change was issued on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964). However, subsequent notices were issued extending the compliance date for the final rule, most recently to September 1, 2006 (see 69 FR 51188 (August 18, 2004)).

One aspect of the amendments to existing Standard No. 205 involved the location requirements for Item 4A glazing. However, after issuance of the July 2003 final rule, NHTSA discovered that the location requirements for Item 4A glazing contained in the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1 had the effect of modifying the agencys existing requirement that Item 4A glazing only be used in side windows rearward of the C pillar, by now permitting use of Item 4A glazing rearward of the B pillar. This substantive change to the Federal standard was unintended and contrary to long-standing agency policy. As stated in our August 12, 1996, final rule permitting

the installation of Item 4A glazing, "It has always been NHTSAs intent that Item 4A glazing not be permitted in areas where it may come into contact with an occupants head" (61 FR 41739, 41741). The concern has been to locate Item 4A glazing away from seating positions where occupants riding in those seating locations may be able to contact their heads against that glazing during a crash, because such glazing, when broken, could produce sharply pointed shards.

Accordingly, NHTSA published a correcting amendment to reinstate the location restrictions for Item 4A glazing contained in the previous version of FMVSS No. 205. To this end, paragraph S5.5 was added, providing, "Item 4A glazing, as specified in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, may only be used in side windows rearward of the C pillar". (68 FR 55544, 55545

(Sept. 26, 2003)). This provision merely clarifies which side windows may use Item 4A glazing; it was not intended to restrict other specified locations where installation of Item 4A glazing is permissible.

We understand that Item 4A glazing meets or exceeds the properties of Item 4 glazing, so it would make little sense to impose more restrictive location requirements for Item 4A glazing. Thus, S5.5 does not alter that portion of ANSI Z26.1 that permits Item 4A glazing "[i]n all areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used", one of which is the rear window of convertible passenger car tops (see ANSI Z26.1 (1996 version) Item 4A(a), referencing permissible locations in Item 4(a)-(m)). We intend to issue a clarifying amendment in the near future.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:205
d.2/23/05

ID: nht76-5.4

DATE: 07/23/76

FROM: HERLIHY FOR S.P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: Celanese Fibers Marketing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1976, recommendation that paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, be amended to clarify that the temperature specified in the "resistance to light" test procedure is intended to be "black panel" temperature rather than "bare bulb" temperature.

The procedures outlined in Standard No. 209 for the "resistance to light" test were adopted from the Bureau Standard's procedures for testing seat belts. The standard was developed by an industry and government group, which included Celanese Fibers, as a simplification and improvement of the A.S.T.M. Designation E42-64 procedure. The "resistance to light" test was established to test nylon webbing, which was the standard material used in seat belt webbing at that time.

We recognize, however, that the industry now uses decron and polyester materials in seat belt webbing, and that the Standard 209 test procedure developed to test nylon does not give meaningful results for these new materials. Therefore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not enforce the requirements of paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209 in the case of seat belt webbing made of dacrons and polyesters, and will not until appropriate testing procedures can be developed and incorporated in the standard for these new materials.

Procedures for testing systems containing materials other than nylon are under development and we plan to initiate rulemaking to incorporate these procedures into standard 209. You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

We would appreciate any data you may be able to provide regarding colorfastness tests for fabrics other than nylon.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht95-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 6, 1995

FROM: Terry M. Habshey -- Oxy Tire Incorporated

TO: Philip Recht -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/24/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERRY M. HABSHEY (A43; STD. 109; STD. 110; STD. 119; STD. 120; PART 534; PART 575)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht,

Your name and address was referred to me by Ms. Terri Droneburg of the Tire I.D. and Record Keeping Dept of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as the person responsible for giving a legal interpretation as to our request for a D.O.T. n umber for new tires.

I am the president of a tire company located in Montevallo, Alabama just South of Birmingham off interstate Hwy 65. We are a global tire distributer involved in export only. We export mainly to second and third world markets.

We are currently constructing a new building that will house a state of the art manufacturing facility. This facility is somewhat unique in function, which is why I am sure we were directed to you. We have made arrangements to take certain quantitie s of new first line tires from many of the U.S. tire manufacturers on an ongoing basis. These tires consist of original equipment overruns, appearance blems, etc. I would point out that all the tires we receive are new and meet or exceed the minimum st andards set forth by the Department of Transportation. In accordance with our contracts, and for marketing reasons only, we remove most of the information from the sidewalls of the tires. This fact makes our project necessary.

We intend to remove, by a new process, the surface areas on both sides of the carcass (tire). This process does not expose the original cord or bead of the tire, nor does it come in contact with the original tread. It only removes a thin layer of th e sidewall rubber. This is a necessary step in the preparation of the carcass to be able to receive a new sidewall which is achieved by applying a thin layer of new rubber to be followed by the next step in our manufacturing process which is "cooking" o r vulcanizing the new sidewall onto the tire. This is achieved by a process using specially designed equipment developed specifically for this project. The equipment uses heat and light pressure to the area of the tire that needs it (the sidewall). Th is process does not expose the original tread, inner cavity, or bead to heat or pressure. When the process is complete, we have a tire that has had its sidewall remade. It will have a new registered trade name, logo, and identifying marks along with the size, safety information, mounting instructions, maximum and minimum inflating instructions, etc. We would inspect and test each tire we had performed a manufacturing function on. In addition, we currently and will continue to carry a world wide produc t liability insurance policy. We believe and hope that you will agree that this new and unique process is qualified to receive a D.O.T. number designation of our tires as new tires. Since they are, in fact new tires. I want to make it very clear, so t hat their is no misunderstanding, that each and every tire we receive is a new tire recently produced and meets all minimum standards established by the Department of Transportation.

As you know, a new recapped tire is a tire that has had thousands of miles of use and can and does in many cases have small puncture cuts and so forth on the carcass. A new tread is then reapplied which is never as reliable as the original tread.

These differences, we believe, are significant. Our tires are new, they have never been mounted or used. They are recently manufactured with original tread and new in every respect. Also, each tire will be retested by us and we will stand behind ea ch prior to selling. For these reasons we request a new D.O.T. number and wish to be the manufacturer of record. Please excuse the length of this letter, however I thought that a complete outline of all the details were necessary to facilitate your eva luation in rendering a decision. Mr. Recht, please feel free to call me at (205) 665-4771 if you have any questions regarding this project. Or, if necessary, we invite you to visit our facility at your convenience.

ID: Hyundai_flaps_and_dots

Robert Babcock, Manager
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108




Dear Mr. Babcock:

This responds to your letter concerning the lower anchorage marking requirements in S9.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). As explained below, the concept you ask about would be permitted.

By way of background, FMVSS No. 225 requires vehicles to have child restraint anchorage systems consisting of two lower bars and a tether anchorage. The standard contains "marking and conspicuity" requirements for the lower bars to increase the likelihood that consumers will know that a child restraint anchorage system is present in their vehicle and that they will use it. These requirements are for manufacturers either to mark the vehicle seat back with a small circle where the bars are located (S9.5(a)), or to install a child restraint anchorage system such that the bars are visible (S9.5(b)).

You request confirmation "that the marking and conspicuity requirements of S9.5 are satisfied when child seat anchorages that are covered with a removable flap or cover are identified with words, symbols or pictograms within the spacing limitations provided by S9.5(a)(3)". Stated differently, you ask whether, having marked the seat back as specified by S9.5(a), you may cover the bars with an unmarked removable cap or cover.

Our answer is yes, the cover is permitted, even if the cover is unmarked. In the situation you describe, Hyundais marking the vehicle seat back with the small circles specified in S9.5(a) satisfies the marking and conspicuity requirements of FMVSS No. 225. Having met the requirements by the option of S9.5(a), you are not prohibited from placing a cover over the bars. In fact, the requirements of S9.5(a) presume that the lower bars are hidden from view. Covering them as you describe is therefore not a problem. We assume, of course, that the covers will not obscure the circles required by S9.5(a).

If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.3/22/05

ID: nht88-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable William Broomfield

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable William Broomfield United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Broomfield:

Thank you for your letter, cosigned by Congressmen Bob Carr and Carl Pursell, urging favorable consideration of a petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This petition was filed by C and C, Incorporated, and asked us to reconsider our decision to treat convertibles just like all other passenger cars for the purposes of Standard No. 208, as of September 1, 1989. Further, the petition asked us to change our long-standing interpretation that T-top vehicles are not conve rtibles.

We have not yet completed our analysis and response to this petition. We will consider your views, as well as the arguments presented in the petition, in reaching our final decision. I will see that you are informed of our response to this petition as so on as the analysis is completed.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docket for this petition. If you have any further comments or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell The Honorable William Lehman

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

January 11, 1988 The Honorable Diane K. Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

We understand that on April 29 and October 19, 1987, C and C, Incorporated of Michigan filed a petition for reconsideration (Docket No. 74-14, Notice 51) of a Notice published in the March 30 Federal Register (52 F.R. 10122). We am also aware of your age ncy's notice of October 17, 1986 (51 F. R. 37028, 37029) wherein you concluded that a "vehicle with a T-bar roof would not be considered a convertible." In the March Notice, we understand NHTSA declined reconsideration of a Toyota petition "to exclude T- bar roof vehicles from the automatic restraint requirement." Your Notice explains:

Toyota said that "due to the lack of a door frame or a roof side rail structure, it is impossible to install an automatic belt that is acceptable to customers to the T-bar roof vehicles in view of current technology." Toyota said it will have to disconti nue T-bar roof vehicles after September 1, 1989, unless those vehicles are excluded from the automatic restraint requirement.

NHTSA has decided to retain its current interpretation of the term convertible and thus, is not adopting the proposed revision requested by Toyota. As discussed earlier in this notice, driver-side air bags and automatic safety belt systems will be availa ble for use in convertibles. Since those systems are available for convertibles, Toyota and other manufacturers of cars with T-bar roofs can use those same systems to comply with the performance requirements of the standard.

We observe that C and C's April 29 letter takes issue with the basis for this conclusion, such as your reference to an Alfa Romeo device.

We understand that you have not acted on the C and C petition which raises factual and economic issues unique to this firm and not to Toyota. Those issues, particularly the potential job loss, are not addressed in your March 30 Notice. They would probabl y not be significant in the case of Toyota. They are very significant for this firm. We understand that one manufacturer, Ford Motor Company', has canceled a T-roof contract. That may or may not be related to this matter, but it bodes badly for this firm and its workers.

We point out also that C and C is not seeking a permanent exemption from the 208 rule.

We urge favorable consideration of this petition for reconsideration and development of a proposal that will not cause a job loss at this firm.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM BROOMFIELD BOD CARR CARL PURSELL Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce

The Honorable William Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Transportation and related Agencies Committee on Appropriations

ID: nht88-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bob Carr

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Bob Carr United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Carr:

Thank you for your letter, cosigned by Congressmen William Broomfield and Carl Pursell, urging favorable consideration of a petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This petition was filed by C&C, Incorporated, and ask ed us to reconsider our decision to treat convertibles just like all other passenger cars for the purposes of Standard No. 208, as of September 1, 1989. Further, the petition asked us to change our long-standing interpretation that T-top vehicles are not convertibles.

We have not yet completed our analysis and response to this petition. We will consider your views, as well as the arguments presented in the petition, in reaching our final decision. I will see that you are informed of our response to this petition as so on as the analysis is completed.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docked for this petition. If you have any further comments or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell The Honorable William Lehman

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

January 11, 1988

The Honorable Diane K. Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 40O Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

We understand that on April 29 and October 19, 1987, C and C, Incorporated of Michigan filed a petition for reconsideration (Docket No. 74-14, Notice 51) of a Notice published in the March 30 Federal Register (52 F.R. 10122). We am also aware of your age ncy's notice of October 17, 1986 (51 F. R. 37028, 37029) wherein you concluded that a "vehicle with a T-bar roof would not be considered a convertible." In the March Notice, we understand NHTSA declined reconsideration of a Toyota petition "to exclude T- bar roof vehicles from the automatic restraint requirement." Your Notice explains:

Toyota said that "due to the lack of a door frame or a roof side rail structure, it is impossible to install an automatic belt that is acceptable to customers to the T-bar roof vehicles in view of current technology." Toyota said it will have to disconti nue T-bar roof vehicles after September 1, 1989, unless those vehicles are excluded from the automatic restraint requirement.

NHTSA has decided to retain its current interpretation of the term convertible and thus, is not adopting the proposed revision requested by Toyota. As discussed earlier in this notice, driver-side air bags and automatic safety belt systems will be availa ble for use in convertibles. Since those systems are available for convertibles, Toyota and other manufacturers of cars with T-bar roofs can use those same systems to comply with the performance requirements of the standard.

We observe that C and C's April 29 letter takes issue with the basis for this conclusion, such as your reference to an device.

We understand that you have not acted on the C and C petition which raises factual and economic issues unique to this firm and not to Toyota. Those issues, particularly the potential job loss, are not addressed in your March 30 Notice. They would probabl y not be significant in the case of Toyota. They are very significant for this firm. We understand that one manufacturer, Ford Motor Company, has canceled a T-roof contract. That may or may not be related to this matter, but it bodes badly for this firm and its workers.

We point out also that C and C is not seeking a permanent exemption from the 208 rule.

We urge favorable consideration of this petition for reconsideration and development of a proposal that will not cause a job loss at this firm.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM BROOMFIELD BOB CARR CARL PURSELL Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

cc: The Honorable Jon D. Dingell, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce

The Honorable William Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Transportation and related Agencies Committee on Appropriations

ID: nht88-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1988

FROM: CLARENCE M. DITLOW -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-01-88 TO CLARENCE M. DITLOW, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA.

TEXT: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from Joanne P. Dell'Aquilla of Dover DE who reports that GM has issued a bulletin that shoulder harnesses do not enhance the safety of rear seat passengers. The dealer further stated that shoulder harnesses are un available for her 1988 Buick Regal. The dealer was apparently referring to the enclosed GM Parts Bulletin IB No. 88-68.

This report is so disturbing that we ask you to investigate it. First, all cars made since 1972 have anchors for shoulder belts so installing such belts is feasible. In response to the Center's concern about installing shoulder harnesses in older cars, NHTSA Administrator Steed wrote us on April 28, 1987:

General Motors is already offering such kits to the public through its dealers. . . . NHTSA has encouraged manufacturers to offer well designed retrofit kits for those consumers who desire them, and we will continue our efforts in that regard.

Second, the Center is not aware of any research that finds as GM states:

GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered to rear seat occupants by the lap belt alone.

As the Chief Counsel, you are well aware that the purpose of the rear shoulder belt anchorage standard is to enable consumers to install shoulder belts in the rear seats of their vehicles. As Administrator Steed states, the agency is committed to encour aging retrofits shoulder belts. GM's refusal to provide shoulder belt kits for selected models is effectively frustrating the purpose of the standard and the Administrator's policy.

A response indicating the action taken on this issue is requested.

Date:8/2/88 From:Joanne P. Dell'Aquila To: Center for Auto Safety

On Friday July 22, 1988, 20/20 News Magazine broadcasted a program about seat belts/shoulder harnesses in rear seats of American autos. It was suggested by the program that cars are already set up to receive the rear harnesses (and have been since the 7 0's) and that owners should demand they be installed. Today I called the dealer where I purchased by 1988 Buick Regal and requested they be installed. I was advised that GM, in response to the broadcast, had issued a bulletin which states that GM's Eng ineering Department does not feel harnesses in the rear seats enhance the safety for the passengers seated there. It was further stated that the harnesses are unavailable.

I am writing to determine if GM does in fact have to provide the rear harnesses if requested. Do I have protection from a consumer agency if they do not. If they do install the harnesses as requested, are they considered optional equipment at my expens e? I am sure you have been inundated with inquiries about the program and the problem, but I hope you will be able to response to my letter.

The dealer mentioned above is Kent County Motors, 2181 S. duPont Highway, Dover De 19901. The service manager is Wayne Atkins.

ID: aiam2348

Dear Mr. Terry: This is in response to your March 16, 1976, request for assurance tha paragraph S4.3(f) of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, does not apply to the mechanism in a continuous loop seat belt system that limits (prevents) transfer of belt webbing from the shoulder to the pelvic portion of the belt when the buckle is engaged. Your letter recommended that Standard No. 209 be amended to specifically exempt such adjustment mechanisms from the requirements of paragraph 4.3(f) or that separate, appropriate requirements for those mechanisms be established.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ha determined that the adjustment mechanism described in your letter is not a tilt lock' within the meaning of paragraph S4.3(f) of the standard, although the two mechanisms are superficially similar. Therefore, this mechanism does not have to comply with the requirements of paragraph S4.3(f).; We would like to emphasize our comments to you of June 13, 1975 regarding the requirement that a continuous loop assembly have a sufficiently low level of friction at the buckle mechanism to ensure that the lap portion of the belt is automatically adjustable. The friction in the buckle must be low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt tightens the lap portion of the belt to prevent excessive slack and possible submarining of the occupant.; The NHTSA has also considered Chrysler's petition to amend Standard No 209 to establish separate appropriate requirements' for the adjustment mechanism in question and decided that it should be granted. A notice proposing such modifications of the standard is anticipated in the near future.; As you are aware, the commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does no signify that the rule in question will necessarily be issued. A decision concerning the issuance of a rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: 1984-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Hayes Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 29, 1984

Ms. Doris A. Lindley Purchasing Agent Hayes Equipment Corporation P.O. Box 526 150 New Britain Avenue Unionville, Connecticut 06085

Dear Ms. Lindley:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requesting information on the tire registration requirements applicable to your company as a manufacturer of new trailers. Per your request, I have enclosed a copy of the Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Savings Authorization Act of 1982. You also asked for confirmation that your company, as the manufacturer of trailers, has sole responsibility for keeping records of the tire identification numbers of the tires shipped as original equipment on trailers sold under your company's name. Your understanding is correct.

The responsibility of the various parties for recording and keeping records of the tire identification numbers of new tires are set forth in 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Section 574.10 reads as follows:

Each motor vehicle manufacturer, or his designee, shall maintain a record of the new tires on or in each vehicle shipped by him or a motor vehicle distributor or dealer, and shall maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires. These records shall be maintained for a period of not less than 3 years from the date of sale of the vehicle to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

As you can see from this language, it is the vehicle manufacturer that has the sole responsibility for keeping records of the tire identification numbers of the tires shipped as original equipment an or in the vehicle and records of the first purchasers of those vehicles for purposes other than resale. This responsibility remains even if the tires on the vehicle are changed by a vehicle dealer or distributor, unless that dealer or distributor voluntarily notifies the vehicle manufacturer of the tire change. As long as the vehicle is sold with the tires that were shipped with it as original equipment, dealers and distributors of the vehicle have no responsibilities for either registering the tires or keeping any records. Should those dealers and distributors substitute tires on the vehicle other than those shipped as original equipment, they would have some responsibility for registering the tires with the tire manufacturer, per section 574.9, but it would be the tire manufacturer that would be responsible for keeping the records, not the dealers and distributors.

Should you have any further questions relating to tire registration requirements, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

for Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 11, 1983

Office Of Chief Council National Highway Safety Division 400 7th Street South West Washington DC 20590

Attention: Steve Kratzke

Reference: "Motor vehicle safety and cost savings authorization act of 1982).

Dear Steve:

As per our conversation of this date, I would like to request from you a copy of the above mentioned act. I would appreciate your clarifying one point for me. As I understand it from you, Hayes Equipment Corporation, as the manufacturer has the sole responsibility for keeping records of tire serial numbers and end recipient of said tire. As long as the trailer is sold under the Hayes name, no dealers, distributors, or stores (i.e. J. C. Penney) have any legal responsibility in this regard.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Doris A. Lindley Purchasing Agent

DL:jd